The appeal
During his international career, Adam Gilchrist developed a reputation as a "walker", but when Ajit Chandila made an appeal for his wicket in the third over of the innings, Gilchrist was incensed. Shaun Marsh had hit the ball to mid-on and, on seeing the ball fielded there, Gilchrist was on his way back into his crease at the non-striker's end, when the incoming throw hit him on the glove. As he fended the ball, Gilchrist had taken his bat out of the crease and Chandila collected the ball and broke the stumps, shouting out an appeal. Gilchrist was unimpressed, immediately directing an animated scolding at Chandila, before Rahul Dravid stepped in, withdrew the appeal and placated tempers.

The dipping delivery
Even at 40, it's a rare ball that makes Rahul Dravid seem inept. Yet that's just what Bipul Sharma delivered in his second ball of IPL 2013. Sharma tossed it up, angled into Dravid, and with the batsman having decided to play across the line, the ball began to dip and drift further towards his pads. Dravid ended up missing it by a distance - though he might feel it was not his most erudite shot selection - and the ball zipped through between bat and pad to disturb the stumps.

The Afridi imitation
Shahid Afridi's quicker ball is one of the more freakish acts of modern cricket as he generates, with a legbreak action and a short run up, speeds in excess of 130 kph. Piyush Chawla took a cue from the Pakistan legspinner as Kings XI Punjab sought to break a burgeoning partnership in the 10th over, when out of the blue, he sent down a 117 kph bolt to rattle Shane Watson's stumps. Though Watson spotted the shorter length of the delivery that dismissed him and aimed a pull, he was far too late on stroke and the ball sped past him to deliver a breakthrough for the hosts.

The shot
Ajinkya Rahane hit form in the last two matches, scoring back-to-back fifties, and several splendidly timed strokes against Kings XI made plain just how classy a player he is when in form. The best of his strokes was not the languid six over extra-cover off Chawla, but his imperious punch through cover off Parvinder Awana in the fifth over. Awana pitched on a length, about eight inches outside off stump and Rahane, who had quickly transferred his weight onto the back foot, met the ball with rapid, controlled swing to send it to the fence.

#1: What Gilly could or should have done is moot. The point is, something happened and it was Gilly's reaction to it that meant he was out of the crease. He can't blame someone for it (Ok, he didn't) but then the situation became such that a run out appeal made perfect sense. At the least, Gilly had no business lambasting Chandila for the appeal. A fielder can appeal for anything, it for the umpires/Referee to decide if it was frivolous or not.

#2: Who said that Gilly was targeted? Pretty pointless this point.

#3: Ha Ha I chuckled. Your definition of "appropriate" is highly subjective and inappropriate. That's what I said too --- fix your stand and stick to it. You concede you can't cite anything and rely on obscure incidents.

#4: Again --- decide if rules are to be followed or not, else SRT should have been called back in Kolkata & in CB Series. You defend Gilly but say nothing about that.

drinks.break
on May 12, 2013, 11:24 GMT

@Harmony111, *Sigh* ...

1. To say that Gilly should have swayed or ducked is ridiculous. If you're in a balanced batting stance, you can move to avoid a ball coming on a predictable path (from the bowler to you); when you're running on the pitch, you can't evade a ball coming on an unpredictable path (at you instead of to a fielder). From mid-on to the bowler's crease is only about 0.5 sec on a strong throw. Gilly made a reflex reaction.

2. Under the rules a bowler can target the body; but a fielder can't target a batsman who isn't impeding the stumps.

3. You can list maybe 10 examples where a team took advantage of someone's misfortune. But there are millions of examples (mostly undocumented) of teams declining to do so. I'd rather base my assessment of what's appropriate on the million than the 10.

4. I (and the vast majority of cricket followers) would rather have Dravid as my captain - even if that means giving an opponent a let-off - than someone who holds a view like yours.

Harmony111
on May 11, 2013, 20:49 GMT

@drinks.break: @19:26 GMT when I said ---- "No one can be blamed for that."---- I actually meant ----"No one *except Gilly* can be blamed for that".----

Harmony111
on May 11, 2013, 19:26 GMT

CONTD …
However, during the tea break (not ok as per rules), Eng captain went to MSD and asked him to withdraw the appeal invoking the spirit (ignoring the rules). MSD did so. This proves that in some cases the rules and the spirit are mutually exculsive.

As for Gilly's evasive action, he could have crouched, he could have moved sideways. It was his decision (a poor one) that the ball hit him. No one can be blamed for that.

You yourself concede that you are not arguing from the side of rules but rather from the side of amorphous conventions that ppl go for or against as per the situation. That's precisely my point too. Either the conventions must be respected always or never.

If the batsman is hit by a vicious bouncer, loses his sense of balance and falls on the stumps, do you support the fielding side appealing for hit wicket? Going by your own extreme example, they should not. But does that happen? Since 1877, numerous batsmen have been dismissed like this. Ergo QED.

Harmony111
on May 11, 2013, 19:22 GMT

@drinks.break: Your hypothetical scenario has in fact been a sort of reality for a few years now. I can recall two such incidents which are not identical but similar. In the Kolkata 99 Test, Sachin was taking a run, had reached his crease safely (one better than Gilly in this case), had an unfortunate collision with Shoaib where no one was at particular fault and as a result fell out of the crease. In the meanwhile the throw from the deep came in and hit the stumps. Going strictly by rules SRT was out. Invoking spirit, he could have been called back but wasn't. In a CB Series match vs Oz, SRT was taking a quick run when Brett Lee suddenly stopped RIGHT in front of him while trying to field the ball.

In both these cases it was said that it is the job of the batsman to be alert and to ensure he makes his ground. It was all STRICT RULES there.

In 2011, Ian Bell was run out after being a bit careless, AS PER RULES.

CONTD ...

drinks.break
on May 11, 2013, 12:44 GMT

(Cont'd)

And as for your insistence that Gilly never made his ground, the cricketing question is, did his need to take evasive action interfere with his attempt to make his ground? The obvious answer is, yes it did.

Therefore, whether he had actually made his ground or not is irrelevant to the moral question. The fact is, the fielder (unintentionally?) threw the ball at him, and by endangering him, unfairly prevented him from making his ground, which Chandila then took advantage of.

If you really want to play only according to the strictest interpretation of the rule book, then you have to accept the following hypothetical scenario as well: the ball hits Gilly on the back of the head and knocks him out before he can make his ground, so the fielding team runs him out, because there's nothing against it in the rules.

The difference between that extreme example and what actually happened is only a matter of degree.

drinks.break
on May 11, 2013, 12:34 GMT

@Harmony111, sorry, it doesn't suffice!

I'm not mixing two things. In both examples, someone benefits from an accidental deflection off the batsman (and in Gilly's case, the fielder wasn't even throwing it to the bowler's end). It is accepted across the whole world of cricket (and Australians observe this custom as much as any country) that it is poor form for a batsman to profit from an unintentional deflection; it is equally poor form for a fielder to benefit from the same thing.

And as for playing by the rules OR by the spirit, they're not mutually exclusive choices. Cricket has always been a mix of the two, and this particular example is one where cricketers have been very consistent for over a century.

Was Gilly wrong to react so angrily? Perhaps. Was Chandila wrong to take advantage of the accidental deflection? Absolutely! According to what rule? According to universally accepted convention. We don't need written rules for everything. Sometimes common sense is enough. Cont'd

Harmony111
on May 11, 2013, 11:21 GMT

@drinks.break: Firstly, you are mixing two separate things here. What you ask has no connection to what has happened. The point in focus is that if a batsman is attempting to take a run and during that if some fielder manages to hit the stumps with the ball then is he out or not. Whether it was a direct hit or a relayed throw or a deflection should not matter in my opinion. Does any batsman ever refuse runs if he was trying to hit the ball to the cover but got an edge and the ball went to fine leg? Similarly, the fielder was trying to throw the ball to the keeper and in between something where Gilly was found to be out of his crease (he was never in actually) when the ball hit the stumps. How can this not be out beats me, Only a softie captain would withdraw such an appeal.

Secondly, we got to decide if we play by rules or by spirit. We can't invoke one or the other as per our suitability. The Aussies are notorious to have shifting stances regarding this.

Hope this suffices.

hellraiser9
on May 11, 2013, 5:56 GMT

Once again this incident shows how Dravid is not just a brilliant player but also a man who can bring peace on the field with his presence. Clearly Cricket needs individuals like R.Dravid and Dhoni.. these are people who are like diamonds.. At the same time we need people like Kohli ..who can bring spice and youth..both are necessary ..aggression is required in the way they play the game and shouldnt be in the way they talk...that is wrong. Dravid is truly a legend.. my respect for him grows every time I read something about him.

drinks.break
on May 10, 2013, 22:19 GMT

@Harmony111, answer me this one question: if the ball had deflected off Gilly away from the fielders instead of straight to them, should he have taken a run?

Harmony111
on May 13, 2013, 19:26 GMT

@drinks.break: Wow, whats with that sigh?

#1: What Gilly could or should have done is moot. The point is, something happened and it was Gilly's reaction to it that meant he was out of the crease. He can't blame someone for it (Ok, he didn't) but then the situation became such that a run out appeal made perfect sense. At the least, Gilly had no business lambasting Chandila for the appeal. A fielder can appeal for anything, it for the umpires/Referee to decide if it was frivolous or not.

#2: Who said that Gilly was targeted? Pretty pointless this point.

#3: Ha Ha I chuckled. Your definition of "appropriate" is highly subjective and inappropriate. That's what I said too --- fix your stand and stick to it. You concede you can't cite anything and rely on obscure incidents.

#4: Again --- decide if rules are to be followed or not, else SRT should have been called back in Kolkata & in CB Series. You defend Gilly but say nothing about that.

drinks.break
on May 12, 2013, 11:24 GMT

@Harmony111, *Sigh* ...

1. To say that Gilly should have swayed or ducked is ridiculous. If you're in a balanced batting stance, you can move to avoid a ball coming on a predictable path (from the bowler to you); when you're running on the pitch, you can't evade a ball coming on an unpredictable path (at you instead of to a fielder). From mid-on to the bowler's crease is only about 0.5 sec on a strong throw. Gilly made a reflex reaction.

2. Under the rules a bowler can target the body; but a fielder can't target a batsman who isn't impeding the stumps.

3. You can list maybe 10 examples where a team took advantage of someone's misfortune. But there are millions of examples (mostly undocumented) of teams declining to do so. I'd rather base my assessment of what's appropriate on the million than the 10.

4. I (and the vast majority of cricket followers) would rather have Dravid as my captain - even if that means giving an opponent a let-off - than someone who holds a view like yours.

Harmony111
on May 11, 2013, 20:49 GMT

@drinks.break: @19:26 GMT when I said ---- "No one can be blamed for that."---- I actually meant ----"No one *except Gilly* can be blamed for that".----

Harmony111
on May 11, 2013, 19:26 GMT

CONTD …
However, during the tea break (not ok as per rules), Eng captain went to MSD and asked him to withdraw the appeal invoking the spirit (ignoring the rules). MSD did so. This proves that in some cases the rules and the spirit are mutually exculsive.

As for Gilly's evasive action, he could have crouched, he could have moved sideways. It was his decision (a poor one) that the ball hit him. No one can be blamed for that.

You yourself concede that you are not arguing from the side of rules but rather from the side of amorphous conventions that ppl go for or against as per the situation. That's precisely my point too. Either the conventions must be respected always or never.

If the batsman is hit by a vicious bouncer, loses his sense of balance and falls on the stumps, do you support the fielding side appealing for hit wicket? Going by your own extreme example, they should not. But does that happen? Since 1877, numerous batsmen have been dismissed like this. Ergo QED.

Harmony111
on May 11, 2013, 19:22 GMT

@drinks.break: Your hypothetical scenario has in fact been a sort of reality for a few years now. I can recall two such incidents which are not identical but similar. In the Kolkata 99 Test, Sachin was taking a run, had reached his crease safely (one better than Gilly in this case), had an unfortunate collision with Shoaib where no one was at particular fault and as a result fell out of the crease. In the meanwhile the throw from the deep came in and hit the stumps. Going strictly by rules SRT was out. Invoking spirit, he could have been called back but wasn't. In a CB Series match vs Oz, SRT was taking a quick run when Brett Lee suddenly stopped RIGHT in front of him while trying to field the ball.

In both these cases it was said that it is the job of the batsman to be alert and to ensure he makes his ground. It was all STRICT RULES there.

In 2011, Ian Bell was run out after being a bit careless, AS PER RULES.

CONTD ...

drinks.break
on May 11, 2013, 12:44 GMT

(Cont'd)

And as for your insistence that Gilly never made his ground, the cricketing question is, did his need to take evasive action interfere with his attempt to make his ground? The obvious answer is, yes it did.

Therefore, whether he had actually made his ground or not is irrelevant to the moral question. The fact is, the fielder (unintentionally?) threw the ball at him, and by endangering him, unfairly prevented him from making his ground, which Chandila then took advantage of.

If you really want to play only according to the strictest interpretation of the rule book, then you have to accept the following hypothetical scenario as well: the ball hits Gilly on the back of the head and knocks him out before he can make his ground, so the fielding team runs him out, because there's nothing against it in the rules.

The difference between that extreme example and what actually happened is only a matter of degree.

drinks.break
on May 11, 2013, 12:34 GMT

@Harmony111, sorry, it doesn't suffice!

I'm not mixing two things. In both examples, someone benefits from an accidental deflection off the batsman (and in Gilly's case, the fielder wasn't even throwing it to the bowler's end). It is accepted across the whole world of cricket (and Australians observe this custom as much as any country) that it is poor form for a batsman to profit from an unintentional deflection; it is equally poor form for a fielder to benefit from the same thing.

And as for playing by the rules OR by the spirit, they're not mutually exclusive choices. Cricket has always been a mix of the two, and this particular example is one where cricketers have been very consistent for over a century.

Was Gilly wrong to react so angrily? Perhaps. Was Chandila wrong to take advantage of the accidental deflection? Absolutely! According to what rule? According to universally accepted convention. We don't need written rules for everything. Sometimes common sense is enough. Cont'd

Harmony111
on May 11, 2013, 11:21 GMT

@drinks.break: Firstly, you are mixing two separate things here. What you ask has no connection to what has happened. The point in focus is that if a batsman is attempting to take a run and during that if some fielder manages to hit the stumps with the ball then is he out or not. Whether it was a direct hit or a relayed throw or a deflection should not matter in my opinion. Does any batsman ever refuse runs if he was trying to hit the ball to the cover but got an edge and the ball went to fine leg? Similarly, the fielder was trying to throw the ball to the keeper and in between something where Gilly was found to be out of his crease (he was never in actually) when the ball hit the stumps. How can this not be out beats me, Only a softie captain would withdraw such an appeal.

Secondly, we got to decide if we play by rules or by spirit. We can't invoke one or the other as per our suitability. The Aussies are notorious to have shifting stances regarding this.

Hope this suffices.

hellraiser9
on May 11, 2013, 5:56 GMT

Once again this incident shows how Dravid is not just a brilliant player but also a man who can bring peace on the field with his presence. Clearly Cricket needs individuals like R.Dravid and Dhoni.. these are people who are like diamonds.. At the same time we need people like Kohli ..who can bring spice and youth..both are necessary ..aggression is required in the way they play the game and shouldnt be in the way they talk...that is wrong. Dravid is truly a legend.. my respect for him grows every time I read something about him.

drinks.break
on May 10, 2013, 22:19 GMT

@Harmony111, answer me this one question: if the ball had deflected off Gilly away from the fielders instead of straight to them, should he have taken a run?

Harmony111
on May 10, 2013, 20:21 GMT

@shobhit_nigam: Funny that you read the whole rules book and yet still can't quote the exact law. Here it is for your easy reference. The relevant law is Law 38-1a & 38-2a.

Applying these two clauses, Gilly was OUT and Chandila's appeal was completely ok (note that Gilly was NOT IN HIS CREASE when the ball hit him). Gilly should have been more aware of the situation and could have taken a diff approach to avoid being hit the ball such as bending down quickly or moving sideways. Its his fault is he chose to get hit. The fielder has every right to throw the ball back to the keeper or to anyone else.

RD's retirement comes in here cos he ought to have backed his player. He chose to be the 'needlessly good guy' and took the appeal back. Did he not remember Kolkata 99?

@Jay Kishan: Funny that you worry about a ball of a few oz so much but seem to say nothing if a fielder of 170 lbs hits the running batsman and pushes him out of the crease. Wow.

Harmony111
on May 10, 2013, 20:12 GMT

@ciphernzilch: Thanks for your comment. I have now seen the video and Gilly now looks in even poorer light to me.

@777aditya: I too love Dravid but fact is the era of being nice is over. Now you need to be cunning & mean. Guys like SRT & RD are too soft, we need to be tougher. It was a case of a softie young Indian player getting under pressure from a veteran. RD should have stood up and insisted on the appeal as it was a fair appeal.

@Baseball-Sucks: Have you even seen the incident? Gilly was never in his crease when this happened. He was coming back, got hit, the ball went to Chandila who took the bails off and appealed for a run out. Sounds a perfectly good appeal to me. When I made my original comment I had not seen the video but now that I have seen it I got to say I find Gilly's behaviour inexplicable. Who is he to lambast the opposition team's player for appealing? Gilly had no right to do that even if the appeal had been frivolous (which it wasn't)

Baseball-Sucks
on May 10, 2013, 7:12 GMT

@Harmony111 : Gilly was legally NOT OUT. The law says that " A batsman is not run out if he or his bat had been grounded behind the popping crease, but he subsequently leaves it to avoid injury, when the wicket is put down." Perhaps , you shouldn't comment on things which you clearly have no idea. G'day !!!

NumberXI
on May 10, 2013, 6:59 GMT

@mngc: the replay on youtube clearly shows that at no point did Gilchrist actually make his ground before Chandila attempted to run him out. In fact, even before he was hit by the ball Gilchrist's bat was in the air and after he was hit, he made no attempt to ground his bat in the crease. It is possible that Gilchrist assumed that he had touched down, which might explain his anger - but the evidence seems to suggest that he was actually out, and it was only Chandila's and Dravid's withdrawing the appeal which allowed him to bat on.

game_mayank1983
on May 10, 2013, 5:54 GMT

One of the plays missed was the third man glance by Sanju Samson when he picked the ball of middle stump. The ball was bowled at 130 kmph on the middle stump and was on its way to crashing 2/3rd height of middle stump when Sanju just opened the face of the bat and guided the ball to third man boundary. The commentators and the bowler were surprised likewise.

shobhit_nigam
on May 10, 2013, 5:35 GMT

Just went through the entire Rules book. Legally both the incidents were correct.
To appeal or not-to is a decision of sportsmanship.
A learning curve here. solve the matter in 27 secs & get on with the game instead of tagging till the press conference.

and @Harmony111 how is it related to Dravid's retirement. Strange !!!!!!!!!!

on May 10, 2013, 3:28 GMT

The Gilli runout incident which happened was a good learning for the young guys how the captain should behave in the field and we should stop comparing this incident with Kholi's incident. Kholi has said nothing wrong its International level and you should play your cricket at its merit. Rahul Bai has got a 18+ year of international experience and Kholi is just a kid and he will soon learn things at a good phase.

on May 10, 2013, 3:00 GMT

Chawla bowled a 122k delivery to Gayle in the previous match!

Siva_Bala75
on May 10, 2013, 2:49 GMT

I saw this incident. Chandila did in a hurry. Dravid and Gilly were always fine and managed it well. What is not reported or discussed is Chandila did apologize to Gilly again at the end of the ove. In the end, all is well that ends well.

Ravs1504
on May 10, 2013, 2:24 GMT

@MWaqqar ...i completely agree with you.. chandila did it at the heat of the moment and realized his mistake immidiately. i feel gilchrist was more frustrated with his own form and failiure and was just venting it on chandila... but i think he should have carried him little bit better then what he did..
but good part of the match of Mr Sanju Samson... i hope he only get better from here... he was calm, composed and self assured.. and he look very well behaved as well... no mouthing of false words, no overtly aggressive celbration...great to see him play..

drinks.break
on May 10, 2013, 2:04 GMT

To those insisting that Gilly should just have accepted that he was out, I bet if the ball had rebounded in the other direction, and the batsmen had stolen a single, you would have complained at his unsporting behaviour!

mngc1
on May 10, 2013, 0:57 GMT

I looked at the replay on you tube. Gilchrist was in when the ball hit him AFTER missing the stumps so obstruction was not an issue. He backed out after getting hit and the ball rolled to the bowler who disturbed the stumps. Many people would not think about regaining ground when in the crease and got knocked out of it. It was really bad sportsmanship to appeal. Only people who did not see the incident could think that he was trying for a run.

In the Kohli's case the bowler's leg knocked the bat in the air when it would have clearly been grounded were it not for obstruction by the BOWLER. That appeal should also have been withdrawn.

777aditya
on May 10, 2013, 0:55 GMT

@ Harmony111 - Could not agree with you more that we need Kohli and Ganguly like players, but please do not downplay Dravid - cricket needs to be played in that spirit or it wont be gentleman's game anymore - JAMMY IS THE BEST!

on May 10, 2013, 0:33 GMT

This was a spur of the moment incident that hardly lasted less than half a minute from the moment the shot is played until the appeal is withdrawn. Gilchrist was surprised and wanted to know how the hell it could even qualify for an appeal, Chandila took a few seconds to understand he made a fool out of himself when he looked at Dravid coming over and Dravid, being a gentleman he is, apologized to Gilchrist who was still recovering from the shock that this was appealed for. Again, overall, all these affairs lasted less than half a minute. Except for the inexperienced Chandila who was desperate to make an impression, the other two gentlemen carried on, just the same way we should move on! Simple!

Wealwayslosethecricket
on May 9, 2013, 23:48 GMT

Based on Cricinfo's discription, Gilly was angry because it legally could not be given out run out, because he moved from the crease in order to avoid being hit by the ball. Certainly, this is an understandable response, as a player as sporting as Gilchrist should be treated with more respect. I don't know who 'Chandila' is, but this is terrible sportsmanship on his part.

on May 9, 2013, 21:50 GMT

@ Harmony111 lol you can't thrown 5.5 ounce leather ball at the player to get him to evade and then run him out. Next time Chandila should chase Gilchrist with the bowl to get him out of his crease, and then run him out, I guess that would be ok as well

ciphernzilch
on May 9, 2013, 20:34 GMT

@Harmony111: Couple of things incorrect in your summary. I saw the event live so would like to point out that Gilly was never IN his crease before being hit. He was backing up and seeing that the ball was hit straight to the fielder, he was coming back into his crease. Secondly, Faulkner's throw was NOT to Chandila. The ball was actually thrown to the keeper from straightish mid-on so it hit Gilly on the way. If Gilly had ducked or not put his hand up to evade being hit in on his chest, the ball would NEVER have gone to an "alert" Chandila. What Chandila did was just foolish and he immediately made it look like a joke, whether he intended it or not. It is similar to batsmen refusing to take overthrows when the ball ricochets off the batsmen. It was in the right spirit. We still need many more Dravids in the game. But that doesn't mean I'm against Kohli's stand against Rayudu. In fact, I'm a strong advocate of Mankading. But in this case, commensense and fair play prevailed.

Harmony111
on May 9, 2013, 19:50 GMT

I have not seen the footage and based solely on what the cricinfo live commentary 'officially' says, it seems that @over 2.4, Marsh played a shot and the fielder made the interception and threw it back to Chandila. Gilly who was at the bowler's end got hit by that ball and thus even though he was IN his crease before being hit he reflexively ventured out of the crease as a result of being hit. The bowler Chandila was alert and took the ball of the ricochet off Gilly and whipped the bails off and appealed for a run out. Is something amiss in my summary here, I hope not.

Now based on this summary, I have to say that Gilly was legally OUT. It is immaterial if Gilly was taking or not taking a run - that is something that can't be proven in any case. Fact is, Gilly was out of his crease when Chandila took the bails off. Why Gilly got angry there?

The problem with we Indians is that we want to be seen as righteous, overtly. Good that Dravid retired, we need more Kohlis now.

Baseball-Sucks
on May 9, 2013, 19:49 GMT

@ MrSlickJerk ; "Obstructing the field " ??? What are you talking about ?? Have you even seen the incident ?? The throw came from mid-on. Gilly was at the non strikers end. So how in the world did he obstruct the field ?? You are not that bright, are you ?? It was a poor sportsmanship from Chandila n he got humiliated in front of millions of viewers. Probably he learnt a very good lesson today n will not try to pull fast ones again.

yezdi70
on May 9, 2013, 18:30 GMT

@vadiyar. I saw the incident and videos on the internet and i can say that Chandila did not laugh. He only backed off after receiving a dose from Gilchrist. There is no doubt that Chandila is still immature.

on May 9, 2013, 18:16 GMT

people are forgetting sanju samsons contribution in the rajastan team! he's been one of the main reasons behind rr's wins recently!!! he's calm n composed, technically gifted, over time he'l only improve. i hope the greats of indian cricket c tis talent properly n nurture him. i recon he'l be a wonderful addition to the indian team.

venky85
on May 9, 2013, 18:14 GMT

Why do people blame Kohli so much? @Jinesh Kaiprath: I dont think there was anything wrong about the Rayudu dismissal, Vinay kumar did not come in the way on purpose. Also, it was a direct hit. I think we should all get over this now.

cloudmess
on May 9, 2013, 17:46 GMT

I watched the incident and it did seem a bit of an overreaction from Gilly. But I think the man himself probably knows that. I remember Michael Vaughan once saying that the Aussies - even the more genial ones like Gilly - all had a short fuse on the pitch. It's obviously born from a competitive spirit.

MrSlickJerk
on May 9, 2013, 17:30 GMT

It was a fair appeal from chandila. First, Gilly stopped the throw with his hand and after that he didn't try to get in the crease. Lazy stuff. And then he was angry at chandila for appealing for a run out. I think he was out twice. Obstructing the field and then runout. This is cry baby attitude. It was great from Dravid to withdraw the appeal though.

siddhartha87
on May 9, 2013, 16:36 GMT

Gilly enjoyed the better than anyone else during his hay days.But off late he has looked out of touch which is definitely frustrating for a legend like him.I guess this frustration was the cause of this.

MWaqqar
on May 9, 2013, 15:16 GMT

What Chandila did was in the heat of the moment, moreover he is relatively inexperienced, but Gilly losing temper like that cannot be accepted. Mercifully opposite skipper was RD otherwise things may have exploded.

on May 9, 2013, 14:17 GMT

I didnt watch the game, so commenting based on this article. If Im wrong , sorry.
This is the difference between Fair play and unfair attitude. Difference between Kohli and Dravid.
Kohli didnt withdrew appeal against Raydu, for that he got booed. Simple as that. If this incident happened first Kohli would have not dared to do that. I believe he would have learned.

pinn
on May 9, 2013, 14:08 GMT

Unfortunate for Chandila, even if the game is over, he will be remembered in discussions - 'during the Chandila-event ...' . Is there any dent in fair play award for Royals ?

vaidyar
on May 9, 2013, 14:07 GMT

To be fair to Chandila, immediately after the appeal he was laughing and was even calling out to the umpire to withdraw the appeal. Gilly slightly overreacted and Dravid needed to actually calm him down! Thankfully sense prevailed and it was good to see Chandila smiling at Gilly at the end of the over and apologizing again. This is what happens when two sane people play. Imagine the ruckus if it had been GG or Vk in place of either Gilly or RD!

No featured comments at the moment.

vaidyar
on May 9, 2013, 14:07 GMT

To be fair to Chandila, immediately after the appeal he was laughing and was even calling out to the umpire to withdraw the appeal. Gilly slightly overreacted and Dravid needed to actually calm him down! Thankfully sense prevailed and it was good to see Chandila smiling at Gilly at the end of the over and apologizing again. This is what happens when two sane people play. Imagine the ruckus if it had been GG or Vk in place of either Gilly or RD!

pinn
on May 9, 2013, 14:08 GMT

Unfortunate for Chandila, even if the game is over, he will be remembered in discussions - 'during the Chandila-event ...' . Is there any dent in fair play award for Royals ?

on May 9, 2013, 14:17 GMT

I didnt watch the game, so commenting based on this article. If Im wrong , sorry.
This is the difference between Fair play and unfair attitude. Difference between Kohli and Dravid.
Kohli didnt withdrew appeal against Raydu, for that he got booed. Simple as that. If this incident happened first Kohli would have not dared to do that. I believe he would have learned.

MWaqqar
on May 9, 2013, 15:16 GMT

What Chandila did was in the heat of the moment, moreover he is relatively inexperienced, but Gilly losing temper like that cannot be accepted. Mercifully opposite skipper was RD otherwise things may have exploded.

siddhartha87
on May 9, 2013, 16:36 GMT

Gilly enjoyed the better than anyone else during his hay days.But off late he has looked out of touch which is definitely frustrating for a legend like him.I guess this frustration was the cause of this.

MrSlickJerk
on May 9, 2013, 17:30 GMT

It was a fair appeal from chandila. First, Gilly stopped the throw with his hand and after that he didn't try to get in the crease. Lazy stuff. And then he was angry at chandila for appealing for a run out. I think he was out twice. Obstructing the field and then runout. This is cry baby attitude. It was great from Dravid to withdraw the appeal though.

cloudmess
on May 9, 2013, 17:46 GMT

I watched the incident and it did seem a bit of an overreaction from Gilly. But I think the man himself probably knows that. I remember Michael Vaughan once saying that the Aussies - even the more genial ones like Gilly - all had a short fuse on the pitch. It's obviously born from a competitive spirit.

venky85
on May 9, 2013, 18:14 GMT

Why do people blame Kohli so much? @Jinesh Kaiprath: I dont think there was anything wrong about the Rayudu dismissal, Vinay kumar did not come in the way on purpose. Also, it was a direct hit. I think we should all get over this now.

on May 9, 2013, 18:16 GMT

people are forgetting sanju samsons contribution in the rajastan team! he's been one of the main reasons behind rr's wins recently!!! he's calm n composed, technically gifted, over time he'l only improve. i hope the greats of indian cricket c tis talent properly n nurture him. i recon he'l be a wonderful addition to the indian team.

yezdi70
on May 9, 2013, 18:30 GMT

@vadiyar. I saw the incident and videos on the internet and i can say that Chandila did not laugh. He only backed off after receiving a dose from Gilchrist. There is no doubt that Chandila is still immature.